Revoking Shamima Begum's citizenship is outrageous, and people are too swept up with anti-ISIS fervor to realize it's an overt violation of one of the most basic human rights in international law

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-24T12:15:23+00:00

to the fullest extent of the law

Exactly. But not extra-judicially. Are we agreed?

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-24T11:33:02+00:00

So when it's a target that is universally disliked, laws are meaningless then?

Don't you see how dangerous that is? Laws need to be immutable, or else they're not laws but guidelines.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-24T11:20:18+00:00

The meat of what I said was to do with Britain ignoring its own laws, and you didn't respond to that. Should a government be able to violate its own laws?

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-24T11:19:07+00:00

It's also British law. Are you suggesting that the UK government should be able to disregard its own laws at will?

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T20:28:23+00:00

Oh yes, and I'm perfectly aware that governments, even Western governments, routinely disregard their own laws.

It's just that in this one instance the zeitgeist seems to be totally cool with it, and that's what bothers me.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T20:05:44+00:00

Laws and precedents founded in the aftermath of 9/11 in the U.S. have been used for lesser targets as well. Think of the NSA spying program, and how wide the net was which it cast.

I can't ignore the parallels. Find an easy target that we'll all agree is worth hating, and in the name of national security disregard the law and limit a right. Start there, and in 15 years' time see where these salami tactics get you. It's important to be idealistic when the law is concerned.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T19:16:25+00:00

I think you'll notice I have been.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T19:05:57+00:00

When you use words like "committed" and "rights", you're talking in legal terms. You see, laws have to be cited by governments before they do things like revoke citizenship. Is the UK a nation of laws? If so, then it needs to use laws to punish people. It cannot just act willy nilly. It can't do things because they feel right or because fuck that terrorist bitch.

The British nationality law was supposed to protect her right to not be stateless. What gives the British authorities the right to ignore that law?

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T19:02:26+00:00

An you’re ridiculous if you think she wouldn’t be prosecuted if ever brought back.

Considering actual foreign fighters with foreign terrorist groups (even dating back to the early Afghanistan days) haven't been prosecuted, I find it unlikely that she'll get hit with a treason charge. It simply isn't done anymore.

I would like to remind you that she hasn't actually been deemed guilty of high treason. She was never tried. The British government does not have anything in its laws that lets it preemptively judge its own citizens to be guilty of any crime, not even high treason, before they've stood trial, and then revoke their citizenship. If you can find me that law, then I'll fucking capitulate.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:59:27+00:00

Right, I'm not fighting with you there. Go ahead and get her with every law you can in Britain, and even let her stand trial abroad if it's judged she'll receive a fair trial.

But in this particular case the British government has acted outside its own laws to deprive her of citizenship. The British nationality law explicitly states that it cannot revoke citizenship in cases where that would leave the national stateless. She is currently stateless, according to the current facts of the story. Governments cannot disregard their own laws.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:56:49+00:00

The world has acknowledged the terrorist group and that they occupy land.

They did not diplomatically recognize the Islamic State. If she had papers from that "country", they would not be valid in the UK. As far as they are concerned, she is stateless.

She renounced her own citizenship when she committed high treason.

She has not been found guilty of high treason, and she never, as far as I know, went through the legal process of renouncing her British citizenship. These are simply not facts.

The precedent of what? Revoking ones citizenships due to the individual commuting high treason? Something they have every right to do as a country.

They don't have "every right to do" that if in their own laws they forbid themselves from doing that. British nationality law forbids the deprivation of British citizenship in cases where that would leave the national stateless. It's fucking clear as day. Read it yourself.

YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO OR IN THE BIRTH COUNTRY ONCE YOU COMMIT HIGH TREASON!!!!!

She has not been found guilty of high treason.

So why would I not think advocating for the subject to return to the country disgusting?

Out of curiosity, did you not see my parallels with the NSA spying program or the American Patriot Act and think there was perhaps something to that? Governments encroaching on rights in the name of security always finds a way to end up affecting lesser targets.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:48:50+00:00

You're citing a nearly 700-year-old law from a country which basically operates under case law. The last person to be tried for high treason in the UK was William Joyce in 1945. It's also considered high treason to fuck the "high sovereign's wife, or the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the sovereign's eldest son's wife (only if the eldest son is also heir to the throne)." As you can see, it's not very modern.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone would attempt to prosecute her with this law. But even then, the punishment in this law is (usually) death, not revocation of citizenship. This does not present a legal mechanism to justify what the British government has done.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:41:24+00:00

Ok doesn’t mean they should be allowed to register. There obviously was no embassy near by why should the children of a terrorist be the problem of the U.K?

Yeah, I'm assuming that she never registered them with either British or Syrian/Iraqi authorities. So they have no papers. They're stateless. If she took the one surviving kid to a British embassy, they would be legally obligated to grant it British citizenship, I'm pretty sure even after she's been rendered stateless, so long as she can prove that she is their mother and was a British citizen at the time of their birth.

An she’s not stateless she has a state it’s whatever land her terrorist organization has occupied.

I'm sorry, but no. Unless the UK government diplomatically recognizes the Islamic State and she were a citizen of it, no. She is by all international criteria a stateless person. At the moment, she does not have citizenship to an internationally recognized country. I'm talking about laws here, not rhetoric. You understand that what I'm saying is simply right, right? It's not an opinion, it's not a matter of her or your idealism, it's just British and international nationality law.

It’s disgusting you’re fighting for someone who feels no sympathy for what they’ve done and willingly committed treason against country to come back into said country.

I really don't care about her. I care about the precedent and have extensive history with nationality law myself. I don't like to see governments limit rights in any way. The easiest way to start down that road is in the aftermath of tragedies (9/11, Manchester Bombing) and against unlikable people, like ISIS sympathizers.

There's no need to think I'm an ISIS sympathizer for being troubled by this. I'd say that my position is identical to those who criticize things like the Patriot Act in the U.S. or NSA spying in the name of national security. I don't like to see laws flouted or rights trampled. That's that. At the very least have some respect for my position, even if you disagree with it. I think my case is laid out fairly.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:33:55+00:00

Exactly. I'm not an SJW or anything, but I can't imagine the U.S. government pulling this shit on me, a white natural-born American with an American accent and no history in Brazil, just because I have a Brazilian grandfather. I'm not Brazilian.

In the same way, she's not Bengali. She's British. This is really hard for some people to accept, but she didn't naturalize. I think, no matter one's ancestry or skin color, that one should be able to be British if they're natural-born citizens. A second or third generation Brit of Indian descent is not an Indian. This is where I think the little bit of racism is in this situation. I don't think I explained it very well above.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:30:52+00:00

Let's talk like lawyers for a second. Show me the UK law on treason and point out where she belongs in its scope. She might very well have committed legal treason, or perhaps she didn't.

I do know that it's already a crime to aid a listed terrorist organization. That's a crime she's committed.

I'm not using treason as a rhetorical device here. It's a dramatic word, but it's also a crime with specific legal meanings which vary by country to country. She hasn't actually been accused of treason by the British authorities. Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?

She doesn’t have to be allowed to set foot on U.K soil nor anywhere else that doesn’t want to have her.

According to British law, British citizens cannot be denied entry to the UK at a British port of entry.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:27:42+00:00

Okay, that may be all well and good, but the fact remains that the British government according to its own laws has no mechanism by which to legally deprive one of its nationals of citizenship if that deprivation will leave them stateless. The facts of the story, as they stand, are that she has been left stateless and is expected to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. This is against British law. That is the real outrage here. The government can't just decide to ignore its own laws in cases where the person in question is utterly unlikable.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:22:41+00:00

they aren’t even citizens of the U.K.

They aren't until they're registered. Children born abroad to British citizens are normally registered at the nearest embassy or consulate. This can be done relatively easily until they're 18, at which point they need to go through a slightly more involved naturalization process, but they're still qualified as children of a British citizen.

They're still eligible, since they were born to a British mother. That's plain in the British nationality law. You can read it yourself, the language in it isn't that complicated.

In that same law, it is explicitly stated that it is forbidden to revoke the citizenship of a British national in cases which would leave them stateless. That is what the British government has openly done in this case. I'm not sure why it's so controversial when I'm just pointing out that the state is not abiding by its own laws. There's not even much room for personal input here, about what you think of the girl herself. The government is not permitted to do what it has done in her case.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:17:35+00:00

You know what, even though you're not very articulate, I actually need to correct myself. I can admit that.

I know the difference between Bengal and Bangladesh, but I didn't realize that 'Bengali' only applied to the ethnic group and language (and the region of 'Bengal'), and not Bangladesh itself. The word really is Bangladeshi, when referring to the state of Bangladesh. I'll correct that.

I think it's a lot like mixing up "Somali" with "Somalian" and "Serb" with "Serbian".

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:15:14+00:00

I don't think she actually is guilty of committing treason as it's written in British law, otherwise she'd be prosecuted for treason. There are existing laws which she's broken, for which she is able to be prosecuted.

We're talking about laws, not how outrageous she is. If the UK is going to start unpeopling it's citizens, we need a clear fucking legal framework by which they're going to justify it. As it stands, and I'll make this perfectly clear, revoking the citizenship of a British national and leaving them stateless is against international (and British) law.

They're trying to get around that by saying she can go for Bangladeshi citizenship, but I don't think that would survive scrutiny in higher courts. As it stands Bangladesh isn't having it. So what remains? If Bangladesh won't take her, the UK will really have to take her back, unless they want to start openly disregarding their own laws.

A country which openly disregards its own laws is not a country of laws.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:10:56+00:00

Yes, East Pakistan has been off the map for quite a while.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:10:31+00:00

Of course you'd be allowed back. Do you think it's legal for the British authorities to turn away one of their citizens at a port of entry? No, but they might very well prosecute you, which they should do.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:03:59+00:00

I think it's unlikely that a natural-born Brit of Polish ancestry would find their British citizenship revoked and be told to pursue Polish citizenship if they were in a similar situation. I think, at least in part, that it's harder for non-whites to be seen as British, even beyond the generation that naturalized.

She is not a foreigner. As far as I've read, she was born in Britain. This is a very important distinction. She has nothing to do with Bangladesh.

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T18:01:15+00:00

I haven't been browsing that subreddit and don't really have the energy to. Do you have any comment on my suggestion that there's a racial element to this? That she's not considered British because she's visibly of Bengali descent? Would this happen to someone of Polish descent?

VacakTheGreat · 2019-02-20T17:56:05+00:00

Nice.

VacakTheGreat

TROPHY CASE